Li Dongxu, Zhou Xu, Li Mengsi, An Qi
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, No. 37 Guo Xue Xiang, Chengdu, Sichuan, 610041, P.R. China.
Evidence-based Medicine Research Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, Jiangxi, P.R. China.
BMC Surg. 2020 May 26;20(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12893-020-00777-w.
Treatments for perimembranous ventricular septal defects (pmVSD) mainly include conventional surgical repair (CSR), transcatheter device closure (TDC), and perventricular device closure (PDC). We aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the three approaches in patients with pmVSD.
We searched for comparative studies on device closure and conventional repair for pmVSD to April 2020. A network meta-analysis was performed under the frequentist frame with risk ratio and 95% confidence interval. The main outcome was the procedural success rate. Additional outcomes were postoperative complications, including residual shunt, intra-cardiac conduction block, valvular insufficiency, incision infection, and pericardial effusion.
Twenty-four studies of 8113 patients were included in the comparisons. The pooled estimates of success rate favored the CSR compared with the PDC. No significant differences of success rate were found in the TDC versus CSR and the PDC versus TDC. The pooled estimates of incidences of the residual shunt, new tricuspid regurgitation, incision infection, and pericardial effusion favored the PDC compared with the CSR. There were no significant differences between the PDC and TDC approaches in all outcomes except new aortic regurgitation.
The PDC technique not only reduces the risk of significant complications compared with the CSR, but also produces not inferior results compared with the TDC in selected pmVSD patients.
CRD42019125257.
膜周部室间隔缺损(pmVSD)的治疗方法主要包括传统外科修补术(CSR)、经导管封堵术(TDC)和室周封堵术(PDC)。我们旨在进行一项网状Meta分析,以比较pmVSD患者的这三种治疗方法。
我们检索了截至2020年4月关于pmVSD封堵术和传统修补术的比较研究。在频率学派框架下进行网状Meta分析,计算风险比和95%置信区间。主要结局是手术成功率。其他结局包括术后并发症,如残余分流、心内传导阻滞、瓣膜关闭不全、切口感染和心包积液。
纳入比较的有24项研究,共8113例患者。与PDC相比,成功率的合并估计值更支持CSR。TDC与CSR、PDC与TDC之间的成功率无显著差异。与CSR相比,PDC在残余分流、新发性三尖瓣反流、切口感染和心包积液发生率的合并估计值方面更具优势。除新发主动脉反流外,PDC和TDC在所有结局方面均无显著差异。
与CSR相比,PDC技术不仅降低了严重并发症的风险,而且在选定的pmVSD患者中与TDC相比效果不劣。
PROSPERO注册号:CRD42019125257。